UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES E. WARD, individually, and No. 16-16415 on behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:15-cv-02309- WHA v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding 2 WARD V. UNITED AIRLINES

FELICIA VIDRIO, individually, and on No. 17-55471 behalf of all others similarly situated; PAUL BRADLEY, individually, and on D.C. No. behalf of all others similarly situated, 2:15-cv-07985- Plaintiffs-Appellants, PSG-MRW

v. OPINION UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee,

and

DOES, 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 30, 2020 San Francisco, California

Filed February 2, 2021 Before: Paul J. Watford and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Watford

* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. WARD V. UNITED AIRLINES 3

SUMMARY **

California Labor Code / Preemption

The panel reversed the district courts’ summary judgment in favor of United Airlines, Inc. in two consolidated cases brought by certified classes of United pilots and flight attendants who reside in California, alleging that the wage statements they received from United failed to comply with California Labor Code § 226.

The panel certified to the California Supreme Court the question whether California Labor Code § 226 applied. In response, the California Supreme Court held that the statute applied “if the employee’s principal place of work is in California.” Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 466 P.3d 309, 325 (Cal. 2020). The Supreme Court then set forth a set of principles defining § 226’s permissible reach – the “Ward test”. United subsequently challenged the validity of applying § 226 to these plaintiffs under the Ward test, arguing that federal law precluded California from applying its wage statement law to interstate transportation workers who are based in California and do not perform a majority of their work in any one State.

The dormant Commerce Clause limits the States’ authority to enact or enforce laws that burden interstate commerce. Generally, state laws that discriminate against or directly regulate interstate commerce are virtually per se invalid, but non-discriminatory laws that have only incidental effects on interstate commerce will generally be

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 WARD V. UNITED AIRLINES upheld. The panel held that California Labor Code § 226, as applied to these plaintiffs under the Ward test, did not fall within either of the categories that are virtually per se invalid. The panel rejected United’s argument that application of the Ward test resulted in direct regulation of interstate commerce. The panel also rejected United’s argument that applying California Labor Code § 226 to these plaintiffs under the Ward test violated the dormant Commerce Clause because the burden imposed on interstate commerce was clearly excessive in